Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (6 pages, so I read it now:-) We definitely need to approve this. It's been too long in the process already and that's been our (the IETF's) fault. (I won't object to us trying to improve 6761 after we've done this one, so some of the long debate will have lasting utility.) I thought I saw some edits from the last call that were agreed to be applied and that would improve the document. In particular, one that was to the effect that .onion names would in future need to conform to DNS name syntactic constraints (lengths basically) so that if a node did send a DNS query containing a .onion name, that'd be less likely to cause weird issues. Section 2 is a little sloppy in how it talks about ".onion addresses (point 1), ".onion names" (which is the right term I think) and "queries for .onion" (I think you mean any query for any .onion name and not only for the TLD #4 and #5). A bit more consistency would be no harm, though it's clear enough as is. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
